A study prepared for the Parkland Institute by Timothy F. Hartnagel Department of Sociology, University of Alberta

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 1 2 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY A study prepared for the Parkland Institute by Timothy F. Hartnagel Department of Sociology, University of Alberta

This report was published by the Parkland Institute, December 2002. (c) All rights reseved.

To obtain additional copies of the report Or rights to copy it, please contact: Parkland Institute University of Alberta 11045 Saskatchewan Drive Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1 Phone: (780) 492-8558 Fax: (780) 492-8738 Web site: www.ualberta.ca/parkland E-mail: [email protected]

ISBN 1-894949-00-5

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 3 Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Michelle Robinson, Debra Shenkarek and Naomi Castle in locating material for this paper. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of the Minister of Industry, as Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://statcan.ca, and its toll- free access number 1-800-263-1136.

About the author

Timothy F. Hartnagel is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Alberta where he has worked since 1971, specializing in criminology. He is a former Associate Chair of the Department and Director of the B.A. (Criminology) program. Professor Hartnagel has twice been appointed as a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University; and he will be a Visiting Scholar at the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley from January to May, 2003. He has published widely in a variety of criminology and sociology journals, contributed chapters to several books, and is the author or co-author of three books, including Canadian Crime Control Policy: Selected Readings. His current research includes a study of gambling and crime, an evaluation of a crime prevention program for high risk youth, and the study of public attitudes toward crime and criminal justice policy.

4 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY Executive Summary

his paper reviews some of the recent sions of more fundamental and conflicting ideologi- political rhetoric and public opinion on the cal assumptions regarding views of human nature, T controversial subject of youth crime and the degree of individual responsibility for behaviour, how to deal with it, including the Young Offender’s and the fundamental values of society. The debates Act of 1984 and the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. surrounding the new Youth Criminal Justice Act The paper also examines how accurately this political continue to reflect these ideological conflicts. rhetoric and public opinion matches the available evidence regarding trends in youth crime and the Compared to public perceptions and fears, and workings of the youth justice system. It also discusses much political rhetoric, the official crime data show some of the characteristics of young offenders and that in the 1990s the number of youth charged by the the effects of the youth justice system. Finally, the police dropped 35%, although this was followed by a paper provides some information concerning how we slight 1% increase in each of 2000 and 2001. Only a can better respond to the problem of youth crime. minority of youth are charged with violent crimes, much of which is relatively minor common assault As an example of how political rhetoric can cloud directed at other youth. There has also been a rather than clarify the real issues regarding youth downward trend in youth court caseloads, in part due crime and justice, the comments of various govern- to the increased use of police diversion and alterna- ment leaders and politicians responding to the 1994 tive measures for youth committing less serious murder of Barb Danelesko in her Edmonton home are crimes. Although the public seems to think that reviewed, along with the recommendations of various youth courts have become more lenient, the distribu- Alberta Government task forces and committees. tion of the most serious dispositions imposed by With that as background, various public opinion polls youth courts upon conviction has remained quite on youth crime and justice topics are described and stable since 1992/93; and Canada places a higher analyzed, demonstrating that the public knows little proportion of young offenders in custody than does about crime and criminal justice generally, greatly the United States, although the incarceration rate has overestimating the amount of violent crime and declined in most jurisdictions in Canada in the last underestimating the severity of sentences actually five years. Generally, then, there is a substantial gap given and the time actually served in custody. But between much of the rhetoric and the reality of there is also evidence that the public’s opinions on youth crime and justice. the youth justice system are more complex than appears on the surface and are not as punitive as Longitudinal research has demonstrated that a some of the simple survey questions suggest. small percentage of offenders commit a dispropor- tionate amount of serious and repetitive criminal acts Recent controversy over youth crime and justice is and has identified the risk factors associated with nothing new. For example, the Young Offender’s Act these offenders. These factors can be used to identify of 1984 took seventeen years to be enacted and categories of children who have an elevated risk of continued to be the target of frequent criticism in becoming chronic and serious offenders as they age succeeding years, much of which reflected fundamen- and to suggest the types of early and targeted tal differences in the explanations of crime that prevention efforts of value in reducing such risk. Such people attribute to young offenders. These differing efforts at the early prevention of crime are to be views about the causes of crime and the appropriate preferred to attempts to punish and/or rehabilitate ways of responding to it represent specific expres- older, identified offenders since research has shown

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 5 that putting people into the youth justice system often does not stop future offending and can result in unintended negative consequences for many youth. Substantial cost savings may also be realized if sufficient numbers of chronic, serious offenders can be prevented early on from taking this life course. Examples of such early, targeted social prevention programs include home visits to infants by trained nurses to reduce child abuse and other injuries; certain types of preschool programs; family therapy and parent training about delinquent and at-risk pre- adolescents; and social competency skills curriculums in schools. The paper describes several such model programs that have proven effective in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and/or substance abuse. Since not all crime can be prevented, the paper also describes several programs for responding to youth crime for which there is some evidence of effectiveness, such as Family Group Conferences and Youth Justice Committees.

Youth crime and justice in Canada is certainly an important issue that requires serious attention, but it is hardly the crisis that some would have us believe. Much depends upon how the new Youth Criminal Justice Act is actually implemented. Even the best- validated programs will not succeed if not adequately funded and faithfully implemented by competent staff. Stable, long-term funding of well-established and validated model programs is required. So is a change in the focus of a number of politicians and the media from the exceptional crimes and punitive responses which exaggerate the threat to the public, distort public knowledge of and opinions about youth crime and justice, and limit the feasible options for public policy. A failure to alter the usual political rhetoric surrounding youth crime and justice ob- scures the reality in this area and will contribute to an on-going cycle of controversy that does little to advance efforts at effective crime prevention.

6 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY Introduction

front-page, headline article in the June The article about Sonny Head’s parole and the 11th, 2002 Edmonton Journal reported reprise of the story of the Danelesko murder Athat Sonny Head, convicted of second- recalls the debates that have erupted at various degree murder and sentenced to life imprison- times in Alberta on the controversial subject of ment without parole eligibility for at least seven youth crime and how to deal with it. The purpose years in the 1994 killing of Barb Danelesko in of the current paper is to review some of the Edmonton’s Mill Woods neighborhood, had been recent political rhetoric and public opinion on this granted day parole. Barb Danelesko was fatally topic, along with the controversy surrounding the stabbed on April 16th, 1994 when three youths Young Offender’s Act (YOA) of 1984 and the broke into her home in a suburb of Edmonton, response of the federal government in the new thinking no one was at home. Hearing a noise in Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The paper will the early hours of the morning, Ms. Danelesko also examine how accurately this political awoke and went to check on her children. She rhetoric and public opinion matches the available surprised the intruders, whereupon she was evidence regarding trends in youth crime and the fatally stabbed. Her husband awoke to his wife’s workings of the youth justice system. It will cries, watched her stumble into the bedroom discuss some of the characteristics of young holding her chest, and then chased the intruders offenders and the effects of the youth justice out of the home before unsuccessfully attempting system. Finally, the paper will provide some to revive his wife (Kent, 1997). Sonny Head and information concerning how we can better David Larocque were tried and convicted in adult respond to the problem of youth crime. court after pleading guilty part way through the trial. Larocque was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to four years without parole eligibility for two years; he has now completed his sentence. The third youth was convicted under the Young Offenders Act and sentenced to three years, the maximum for manslaughter in youth court, for his part in the murder. He spent half of his sentence in closed custody, was granted open custody in September 1996 (Powell, 1997) and was released at the completion of his sentence.

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 7 THE RHETORIC In an effort to pressure the Federal Govern- Politics of Youth Crime ment into changing the YOA, in the days follow- and Justice ing the Danelesko murder the Alberta Govern- ment struck a task force of five MLAs to gather Albertans’ opinions on youth crime. “The outcry anelesko’s murder sparked widespread is overwhelming from people concerned with outrage by the public and some politi youth crime and the punishment it receives, or, D cians, as well as calls to change the more to the point, the punishment it appears not to YOA (Engman, 1994). Rallies were held and receive,” Premier Klein told those attending the petitions were signed demanding tougher laws for premier’s dinner in making the announcement. youth crime. The Alberta Legislature held an But Liberal justice critic Gary Dickson called the emergency debate on a motion by then Labor decision “foolish” and “irresponsible” because the Minister Stockwell Day calling on the Federal YOA falls under federal jurisdiction (Johnson, Government to strengthen the YOA so judges 1994). The Task Force held consultations in June could impose lengthier sentences and transfer and July of 1994 in 16 communities and invited youth to adult court more easily. Conservative written submissions. “The Task Force was MLAs called for everything from hanging twelve- directed to develop a report outlining proposed year-olds, to boot camps, reinstating the strap, and changes to the Act which reflected the views of scrapping the Charter of Rights. Mr. Day told the Albertans” and which would form the basis of Legislature that “People want.....to take the law Alberta’s recommendations to the federal govern- into their own hands.....People (are) saying that ment regarding amendments to the Act (The they were going to tell their families to get Young Offenders Act Task Force, 1994). The handguns and put them in their house because the Report of this Task Force indicated that the ban government refuses to do anything about people on the publication of young offender identities bursting into people’s homes and in many cases and the minimum age in the YOA were the two killing them, let alone robbing them or beating most frequently raised issues in the individual and them” (Coulter, 1994). Alberta Premier Ralph group submissions. Submissions from individuals Klein called for the death penalty for young focused on the victim: victim rights, compensa- offenders convicted of murder in adult court, tion and restitution; while the group or while Day also voiced support for the death “stakeholder” submissions focused upon the root penalty for teenagers convicted of first degree cause of crime: prevention, intervention and murder. Calgary MLA Jon Havelock stated that rehabilitation of young offenders. The Report parents of young offenders should face prison then went on to assert that there was support for sentences or fines as punishment for their failings changes to the YOA which would provide a more (Schuler and Coulter, 1994). While several effective response to violent and repeat young Opposition Liberals expressed shock at the offenders including, for example, transfer to adult comments of some Conservative members and court, minimum sentences to ensure consistent called for greater efforts at crime prevention and tough responses, and increased use of meaningful rehabilitation, only one refused to support Day’s restitution and community work service. In- motion; forty-one Conservatives voted in favor creased flexibility in publication of young (Coulter, 1994). offender identities and access to their records, measures to increase parental accountability, mandatory treatment, and a mechanism for

8 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY dealing with offenders under the age of 12 were reported that compared to the national average also noted as themes relating to all young offend- (26%), only 13% of Albertans had confidence in ers. A large number of recommendations to the YOA (Alberta Justice, 1998). From May amend the YOA reflecting these themes were through September 1998, an all party MLA presented as the consensus of the Task Force committee held consultations across the province members. However, few if any of these recom- on all aspects of the justice system and heard mendations concerned prevention and the reha- from individuals as well as representatives of bilitation of young offenders. A telling note interest groups and organizations. The Commit- appears on pg 5 of the Report: “The Task Force tee observed in their report (All-Party MLA was careful to avoid an overly optimistic assess- Public Consultation Committee, 1998) that the ment of the ability of the Young Offenders Act to topic most often addressed by individuals was resolve complex social issues. These factors were that of youth and the justice system, with young weighed carefully to accurately reflect the input offender accountability and responsibility the two received during the consultation process while at most frequently repeated issues. The Committee the same time arriving at meaningful recommen- noted a difference of opinion among the public, dations (The Young Offenders Act Task Force, however, as to how youth should best be handled 1994:5). by the justice system: some believed that tougher On Parliament Hill, Reform MPs called for measures are required while a significant number tougher action on youth crime, painting the believed that punitive measures alone don’t serve Liberal government as soft on crime (Ha, 1994). the best interests of the community or the indi- The focus on youth crime and comments by vidual offender, calling for proactive, coordinated, politicians from various parties concerning the restorative justice programs. While the MLA alleged leniency of the YOA and the need to Committee members supported restorative justice amend it were also given prominent play in the approaches, they also called for amendments to Alberta media in the run-up to the 1993 federal the YOA consistent with the recommendations election. For example, then Federal Solicitor contained in the 1994 Alberta Task Force Report General Doug Lewis was quoted as stating, “I’m on the Administration of the YOA, namely that: told by police officials as I move around the there be easier transfer to adult court for serious country that they have trouble with repeat offend- and chronic offenders; presume adult court for ers who are laughing at the act and giving it a bad youths 16 and older who commit serious violent name” (Edmonton Journal, 1992). Lewis went on offences not currently addressed in the YOA, and to suggest that repeat offenders should automati- for those with a pattern of violence; allow upon cally be tried in adult court. The then Alberta conviction the publication of the identity of Justice Minister, Dick Fowler, agreed with this chronic repeat offenders and those young offend- conclusion, claiming that the youth courts are ers convicted of an offence involving serious severely restricted in the punishments they can violence. meet out (Edmonton Journal, 1993). The Justice Summit resulted in 519 recom- Youth and the justice system was also a topic mendations in total, some of which dealt with considered as part of the public consultation held Youth and the Justice System. As would be by the Alberta Government in preparation for the expected given the format, some of these recom- Summit on Justice held in January 1999. An mendations are contradictory; but many focused Angus Reid poll conducted in 1997 for Alberta on the need for crime prevention, rehabilitation of Justice on public confidence in the justice system young offenders, alternatives to custody and

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 9 restorative justice initiatives while also emphasiz- The Annual Report of Alberta Justice for ing the accountability and responsibility of young 2000/01 contains a section on youth justice offenders. The Summit Final Report initiatives (www.gov.ab.ca/just/pub/annrep/2001/ (www.gov.ab.ca/justicesummit) condensed all of results10.htm). These include an allocation of $1 the recommendations into 8 themes and 25 core million for 2000/01 in response to the recommen- recommendations, 4 of which touched directly on dations of the Alberta Children’s Forum and the the subject of young offenders. They called for: Premier’s Task Force on Children at Risk to more strategies and resources for community- enhance mental health services for young offend- based early childhood intervention, education and ers. Mental health units have been created in the prevention programs; strengthening measures to Calgary and Edmonton Young Offender Centres prevent crime through early intervention and with enhanced staffing to allow more intensive social development; more support for various contact with mentally ill offenders. Financial forms of community corrections for youth; and support was also provided to the Safe and Caring that justice for young offenders focus upon Schools Initiative. Also, the Edmonton Youth responsibility and accountability using diversion Attendance Centre offers an intensive support and and restorative justice where appropriate and that supervision program for young offenders judged violent and repeat offenders receive sentences to less likely to successfully complete their proba- match the seriousness of their offences. The tion or conditional sentence. A similar pilot response of the Alberta Government in May of program for Aboriginal young offenders was also 1999 to this Final Report spelled out immediate, implemented. short and longer term actions. With respect to young offenders these included such actions as: considering the expansion of Youth Justice Committees; an increased use of practical and Public opinion about community work experience; liaising with the youth crime and justice Federal Government to develop and implement proposals passed under the new federal youth uch highly publicized cases as the justice strategy; supporting the Alberta Children’s SDanelesko murder, even though atypical, Initiative; cooperating with other government quite likely contribute to an increased concern agencies, the Federal Government and community among Canadians and Albertans about violent groups in crime prevention efforts; and continuing crime committed by young people. Various to focus resources on serious and violent youth public opinion polls and research studies report crime and to use alternative measures where that Canadians believe that youth crime has appropriate. Interestingly, there was no mention increased over time and the YOA is therefore of the YOA, perhaps because the Federal Govern- ineffective (Environics, 1998; Hartnagel and ment had already announced its intention to Baron, 1995; Peterson-Badali, 1996). For introduce new legislation. example, in one survey 89% of respondents believed that youth crime is increasing and 82% felt that crimes committed by youths should be a high priority for the justice system (Environics, 1998). In fact, the development of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaces the YOA, has been attributed to “public frustration with the

10 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY Young Offenders Act and a political determina- A survey in Toronto similarly reported that most tion to get tough with young offenders (Varma people believe that youth court dispositions are and Marinos, 2000). In one public opinion poll, too lenient; but most of these respondents were only 26% of people interviewed were somewhat thinking of a minority of cases, namely those or very confident in the YOA, with confidence involving serious, violent, repeat offenders levels lowest in the Prairie provinces at 13% (Sprott, 1996). Respondents also had very little (Angus Reid Group, 1997). Polls in 1994 and accurate knowledge of the operation of youth 1998 found that increasing penalties for young courts, underestimating the severity of the offenders, particularly those convicted of violent dispositions available and believing that the crimes, was the number one criminal justice courts were much more constrained than they are priority for Canadians (Roberts, 2000), while an in their ability to transfer cases to adult court. In Angus Reid poll (1998) reported that dealing with fact, a national survey found that almost half the youth crime was seen by Canadians as a more sample admitted that they were not familiar with important priority than health care, education, or the YOA (Decima Research, 1993). balancing the budget! Research concerning the public’s opinions and A 1993 survey in Winnipeg showed that a preferences regarding criminal justice penalties large majority of the adult respondents agreed that and policies has demonstrated that the public young offenders who commit a second offence knows little about crime and criminal justice should be tried in adult courts (67%); and that generally, greatly overestimating the amount of youth courts have become too lenient (78%) violent crime and underestimating the severity of (Baron and Hartnagel, 1996). A similar survey in sentences actually given and the duration of time Alberta revealed even more punitive views, with actually served in custody (Canadian Sentencing 80% agreeing that a second offence should be Commission, 1987). When responding to infor- tried in adult court (Hartnagel and Baron, 1995). mation, members of the public are prone to a However, these punitive attitudes did not appear number of cognitive errors that can give rise to or to be based upon experiences of actual victimiza- maintain incorrect beliefs regarding crime and tion or fear of crime (Baron and Hartnagel, 1996). criminal justice (Roberts, 1992). Four of these Survey data from 1997 in Ontario indicated that are particularly relevant. First is over-generaliza- 64% of the respondents were opposed to a tion: people are overly influenced by information separate youth justice system and more than four- about a single case. Hearing of one particularly fifths thought that youth court sentences were too lenient sentence gives rise to the perception that lenient (Sprott, 1998). Opposition to a separate most sentences are too lenient. Second, availabil- youth justice system was related to other punitive ity: estimates of the frequency or likelihood of an attitudes (that youth court sentences were too event are determined by the ease with which lenient and that youth should receive the same instances or examples come to mind. The public sentences as adults). Those who opposed a is likely to overestimate the frequency of murder separate system also estimated recidivism rates or violent crime because they are easier to recall, for youth to be higher than they were in reality, particularly given the disproportionate attention were more likely to think that crime in their given them by the media. Third, attitudes held province had increased , that crime in their with a high degree of confidence are resistant to neighborhoods had increased, and were more change; and people who are very confident of fearful about walking alone after dark than those their opinions tend to be more susceptible to who favored a separate justice system for youth. cognitive errors and respond less objectively to

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 11 relevant information. There is evidence that THE REALITY many of the opinions held by the public concern- ing criminal justice are held with a fair degree of et there are hints that the public’s confidence and therefore are not readily changed opinions on the youth justice system are by objective data. Finally, there is biased cogni- more complex than appears on the tive processing of information. Many people Y surface. The more information given the public have strong views about crime and criminal concerning the offender and the offense, the less justice and the strength of these views hinders punitive they become. For example, in one study rational examination of relevant information. 80% of those given only a brief description of a People tend to believe what they want to believe, manslaughter case thought the sentence was too namely information that is congruent with their lenient. But of those who read a more compre- pre-existing attitudes (Roberts, 1992). hensive account, only 15% thought the sentence given by the court was too lenient. This finding is important since most sentencing stories in the news media-the primary source of information for the public-are brief and lack much detail, as well as being biased toward the more sensational and atypical crimes. In fact, research (Roberts and Doob, 1990) has demonstrated media influences on public attitudes toward sentencing. Subjects who were randomly assigned to read a news media account of a sentencing decision were much more likely to feel the sentence was too lenient than were those who read a summary of the actual court document on the case. The public also lacks information about different sentencing alternatives. When this information is provided, opinions change and support for incarceration declines significantly (Canadian Sentencing Commission, 1987). This body of research tells us that if members of the public were exposed to as much information as was available to the sentencing judge and the different sentencing options available, public satisfaction with sen- tencing decisions would increase. In the Alberta survey most respondents did not think that sending young offenders to jail will stop them from committing crimes, while almost two-thirds indicated that rehabilitating a young offender was more important than making him pay for what he had done. When multiple variables such as age, education, victimization,

12 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY fear of crime and conservative values were preference for a non-prison sentence drops included in an analysis of punitive attitudes substantially (to 49% for B&E and 47% for toward young offenders, only the latter-particu- assault), but is still larger than the 44% of re- larly conservative social values—were related to spondents preferring prison in these cases. These greater punitiveness (Baron and Hartnagel, 1996). sentencing preferences were quite similar to the When Ontario residents were asked what is the actual sentences imposed by youth court judges, most effective way to control youth crime, about although the public was slightly harsher for cases one-quarter of respondents indicated to make involving assault (Tufts, 2000). These results sentences harsher; but approximately one-quarter demonstrate that the public’s attitudes toward chose to increase social programs. A further 22% punishment are not as punitive as suggested by wanted to increase the use of punishments other simple survey questions regarding the harshness than imprisonment and 19% chose to reduce of sentences. unemployment. When asked, then, most people believe that harsher sentences for young offenders are not the best way to make us safer. Even among those who said sentences were too lenient, only 25% would prefer investing money in MORE RHETORIC building more prisons for young offenders rather The Young Offender’s Act than sentencing more of them to alternatives to prison, while only 13% preferred spending it on he YOA was under frequent criticism more prisons rather than on programs to prevent almost from its inception in 1984. Many crime. Ontarian’s support for the use of prisons is T have argued that the act is too soft on soft and decreases when people are reminded that young offenders, with the sentences available too offenders are eventually released or that imprison- light, particularly for repeat or more serious ment is expensive (Doob, 2000). In another offences. The minimum age of legal culpability- Ontario study, the desire to imprison young twelve-is thought to be too high; and the age of offenders in specific cases was not solely the adulthood-eighteen-is seen as “molly coddling” result of a general desire for more punitive young adult criminals (Maxim and Whitehead, responses to youth crime, but was due, in part, to 2000). This has fueled calls for easier and more perceptions that alternatives to prison were frequent transfers of young offender to adult ineffective (Sprott, 1998). So holding young court. The ban on publicizing names of young offenders accountable through more effective offenders has also be criticized for placing the community alternatives to custody would appear public at greater risk and making it more difficult to satisfy a substantial number of Canadians. for police to identify serious offenders, while The 1999 General Social Survey conducted by others claim the YOA exhibits excessive concern Statistics Canada examined public attitudes for the rights of offenders at the expense of the toward sentencing in Canada using hypothetical rights of victims. A primary concern is that youth cases for which respondents were asked to choose too easily learn how to manipulate the legal prison or non-prison for their sentencing prefer- system rather than accept responsibility for their ence. For first-time young offenders convicted of conduct (Maxim and Whitehead, 2000). How- either break and enter or minor assault, approxi- ever, the YOA was also criticized by others for a mately 72% of respondents favoured the non- too-heavy reliance on custody as a response to prison sentence. For repeat young offenders the youth crime and for insufficient attention to the

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 13 prevention of crime by young people (Dell, that rehabilitation for youth charged with minor 1999). The formalization and “legalization” of offences is best achieved in the community. the juvenile justice process has also been criti- However, considerable public criticism and cized for its focus upon establishing legal guilt political concern continued to be focused upon through elaborate procedures rather than optimal certain aspects of the YOA. Some politicians and outcomes (Hackler, 2002) newspaper editorials called for additional changes Controversy over society’s response to youth to the Act to hold youth more accountable and crime is nothing new. Demands for stricter responsible for their behaviour and to protect the punishment are not confined to recent years but public from violent youthful offenders. The occurred throughout the 19th and 20th centuries Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on (Gillis, 1974). The original Juvenile Delinquents Youth Justice Report in 1996 reviewed the YOA Act of 1908 certainly had its critics; and it took and made a number of recommendations on age seventeen years and several drafts of the Young limits, serious offenders, alternatives to the courts, Offender’s Act before it was finally proclaimed in transfers to adult court and sentencing. This 1984, mainly due to disagreement over the report was referred to the Commons’ Committee conflicting philosophies of welfare, crime control, on Justice and Legal Affairs which recommended and due process (Bala, 1994). While the Act in April 1997 that the primary purpose of the contained references to all three approaches, a YOA should be restated as the protection of number of commentators thought it emphasized society, with crime prevention and rehabilitation justice and due process at the expense of the seen as “reinforcing strategies” for this crime welfare and rehabilitation of young offenders, control purpose. In addition, they recommended giving undue attention to public protection over lowering the minimum age to ten for certain their needs (Archambault, 1991). Yet subsequent offences and requiring parental/guardian attend- amendments attempted to further tighten proce- ance in court, as well as increased federal funding dures and enhance crime control and public for community crime prevention initiatives and protection. For example, amendments to the more use of alternative measures such as police YOA in 1992 increased the maximum sentence cautioning, family group conferencing and circle for murder from three to five years and specified sentencing. Calls for reform of the YOA contin- that youth must be transferred to adult court if ued. At their August 1997 conference, the both the protection of the public and the rehabili- Premiers (with the exception of Quebec) encour- tation of the offender cannot be met by sentences aged the federal government to “move expedi- available under the YOA. Further amendments in tiously to introduce meaningful amendments to 1995 specified that youth charged with particular the YOA.” They also agreed that the federal, violent offences were to be tried in adult court provincial and territorial governments should unless an application was granted to enable the cooperate to improve preventative and rehabilita- case to be heard in youth court, with the burden of tive programs for young offenders. In December proof on the youth to demonstrate that the of 1997 the Ministers of Justice of Alberta, protection of the public and the best interests of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario the youth would both be achieved by a transfer to tabled their proposed amendments to the YOA. youth court. The maximum sentence in youth In response, the new Federal Youth Justice court for first degree murder was also increased to Strategy was announced in May of 1998 by the ten years and to seven years for second degree then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, with murder. But these amendments also emphasized enhanced public protection the principle objec-

14 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY tive. The government’s strategy focused upon specific criteria must be met before a custodial three areas: promoting crime prevention and sentence can be imposed; the transfer to adult effective alternatives to the formal youth justice court process is eliminated, with the youth court system; ensuring that youth crime is met with first determining guilt which may then result in an meaningful consequences; and emphasizing adult sentence under specified circumstances; rehabilitation and reintegration (Department of repeated serious violent offences are added to the Justice, nd). Minister McLellan stated the Federal list of offences where an adult sentence is pre- Government’s intention to replace the YOA with a sumed; the age at which such a presumption new Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to restore applies is lowered to 14, but with provinces given public confidence in the youth justice system. the option of raising this to 15 or 16; allowance This new act includes a Declaration of Principle for the publication of identifying information after which states that the youth justice system can a youth court finding of guilt and an adult sen- contribute to the long-term protection of society tence is imposed, as well as under some circum- through its objectives of preventing crime, stances where a youth sentence is imposed for a rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons presumptive offence; and specification of the role into society and by ensuring meaningful conse- of victims at different stages, with a right of quences for offences. The Declaration also access to youth court records. After three drafts recognizes that youth lack the maturity of adults and over 150 amendments, the YCJA was passed and should be held accountable through interven- by the House of Commons on May 29, 2001 and tions that are fair and in proportion to the serious- then by the Senate on December 18, 2001 with an ness of the offence. Within these limits of fair amendment referring to alternative sentencing and proportionate accountability, interventions considerations, particularly with respect to the should reinforce respect for society’s values, circumstances of Aboriginal youth. The bill with encourage repair of the harm done, be meaningful this amendment passed the House on February 4, to the young person, respect gender/ethnic/ 2002. Although the new legislation received cultural/linguistic differences and respond to the Royal Assent on February 19, 2002, it does not needs of Aboriginal youth. Main features of the come into effect until April 2003 so that the YCJA include: increased use of extrajudicial provinces and territories have time to develop measures of effective and timely responses for policies and programs to support its implementa- less serious offences; decreased use of pre-trial tion. detention; authorization and encouragement for Not surprisingly, the proposed legislation drew the convening of conferences to give advice a barrage of sharply contrasting criticism. Some concerning various judicial decisions; a statement thought new legislation was unnecessary since the of purpose concerning youth sentencing, namely YOA could be easily amended to accomplish the that it should hold young offenders accountable Government’s intentions. Others saw in it an through just sentences that ensure meaningful overemphasis on punitive responses to serious, consequences for them and promote their rehabili- violent offenders and a pandering to conservative, tation and reintegration into society; custody is to right-wing voters. Predictably, a few, particularly be reserved primarily for violent and serious from the Canadian Alliance, considered it still too repeat offenders, with the custodial portion of the lenient on repeat and serious or violent offenders. sentence being followed by a period of supervi- The Conservative Government of Ontario, sion and support in the community; alternatives to claiming that the proposed Youth Criminal Justice custody must be given first consideration and Act failed to protect the public and hold young

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 15 offenders accountable for violent acts, went so far fair and equitable distribution of power, wealth, as to draft its own proposal for amendments to prestige and privilege-and the paramount evil is Ottawa’s draft legislation. Called the “No More the concentration of these valued resources in the Free Ride for Young Offender’s Act,” it proposed hands of a privileged minority. In criminal justice over 100 amendments to, among other things, policy the two sides disagree over the relative require: that 16 and 17 year olds be automatically priority of these two valued conditions: whether tried and sentenced as adults when charged with order with justice, or justice with order should be serious offences; mandatory jail time for weapons the guiding principle. Similarly, while some offences; and to permit public identification when assume that individuals choose to act on the basis a young offender is found guilty of a serious of rational calculation of benefits and costs and offence (Government of Ontario, 2001). The therefore are responsible for their own behaviour, Government of Quebec has referred the Youth others view human behaviour as constrained and Criminal Justice Act to the Quebec Court of influenced by various conditions external to the Appeal to rule on its constitutionality and adher- individual, with correspondingly diminished ence to international treaties. The Quebec personal responsibility. These underlying beliefs Government claims the act infringes upon its about the causes of individual behaviour are powers over youth protection and administration linked to corresponding views regarding the of justice, and is too punitive for Quebec’s more appropriate responses to crime. The first group rehabilitative approach to youth crime. believe that offenders deserve punishment and Most of the criticisms directed toward the they, along with potential offenders, will be YOA and debate over the YCJA reflect funda- deterred by it. In contrast, the second group mental differences of opinion concerning how emphasizes rehabilitation of offenders and society should deal with young offenders, which prevention of crime in an attempt to change the in turn may result from underlying differences in conditions thought to cause criminal conduct. the explanations that people attribute to the These contrasting ideological positions help shape criminal behaviour of young offenders. These public opinion and political discourse on crime differing views about the causes of crime and the and justice issues and contribute to the formula- appropriate ways of responding to it represent tion of public policy responses to them. specific expressions of more fundamental and conflicting ideological assumptions regarding such issues as the view of human nature, the degree of individual responsibility for behaviour, and the fundamental values of society (Miller, 1973). These ideological assumptions are generally unexamined presumptions that have a strong emotional charge and are relatively resistant to change, exerting a powerful but largely unrecognized influence on criminal justice policy positions. Miller argues that a paramount societal value for some is social order-a society based on a pervasive and binding morality-and the paramount danger is disorder. For others the paramount value is justice-a society based on a

16 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY THE REALITY Trends in Yout Crime

ompared to public perceptions and fears, Of course, other sources of data concerning and much political rhetoric, the official crime, such as victim surveys and self-report C crime data show that in the 1990s the studies, along with studies of the workings of the number of youth charged by the police dropped criminal justice system have taught us that not all 35% (Tremblay, 2000). The rate of youths aged crimes committed get reported to the police, that 12 to 17 charged with criminal offences increased only a fraction of these reported offences are slightly (1%) in 2000, after eight years of de- cleared up by arrests and charges laid against an creases. This was followed by a further 1% alleged offender, and that police and the courts increase in 2001, although Alberta’s rate declined exercise discretion in their decision-making, by 1.4% (Savoie, 2002). The overall increase in particularly with young offenders. From self- 2001 was a result of a 6% increase in the rate of report research we know that most youth engage “Other Criminal Code” offences (such as mischief in behaviours which have the potential to land and offences against the administration of justice), them in youth court if they were caught and and a 2% increase in the rate of youth charged processed officially. In fact, some have suggested with violent crime. This latter increase was that there is an infinite supply of youth crime in driven by a 10% increase in the rate of youth the community that could be processed by the charged with robbery, particularly robberies with courts (Doob and Sprott, 1996). However, these a firearm (+35%). However, the number of official data are useful for tracking trends over a youths charged with homicide was the lowest in decade-long time span since it is unlikely that over 30 years. The youth property crime rate- large increases or decreases in officially recog- which accounts for 44% of youth crime-dropped nized crime during that time result mainly from by 3% in 2001 (Savoie, 2002). changes in the public’s willingness to report crime

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 17 or unrecognized differences in criminal justice whole (940), with the rates varying from a high of system practices. Nonetheless, we do need to be 2110 for the N.W.T. to a low of 545 in Prince cautious in interpreting officially-produced and Edward Island. In addition to the three territories, other crime data. In particular, the use of alterna- Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario all reported tive measures for young offenders can affect the higher rates of youth charged with violence in rate of youth charged, particularly for first-time 2001 than Alberta (Savoie, 2002). In contrast to offenders committing minor offences. Variation the incidents emphasized in the media, the victims by province/territory in the use of alternative of youth violence are most likely to be other measures at the pre- or post-charge stage makes young people of about the same age who are comparisons of the youth charge rate across known to them (Savoie, 1999). The rate of youth provinces/territories problematic (Logan, 2001). charged with property crime decreased 3.3% With this in mind, we can briefly examine (7.2% in Alberta) in 2001. While Alberta’s rate of additional official data on recent trends in youth youth charged with property crime (2301 per crime. 100,000 youth) was above the Canadian average Of youths aged 12 to 17 (the ages covered by (1824), it ranked seventh among the provinces/ the Young Offenders Act) charged with a Crimi- territories. nal Code offence, only a minority are charged As indicated above, these data on the number with violent crimes; in fact, youth commit or rate of young people charged are influenced by proportionately less violent crime than adults. Of the discretion of the police to charge or deal with all youths charged in 2001, 23% were charged an apprehended youth in some other way, such as with violent crimes, 44% with property crimes taking no action, an informal warning or notifica- and 33% with Other Criminal Code offences such tion of parents, or referral to a pre-charge alterna- as mischief and bail or other violations of court tive measures program. “Thus, changes in orders. The rate of youth charged with property numbers of young persons charged may confound crime peaked in 1991 but has steadily dropped changes in youth crime with changes in police thereafter. The rate of youth charged with violent charging practices (Carrington, 1999:6).” Since crime declined by a small amount in the latter half the Uniform Crime Reports (official crime data) of the nineties, but is considerably higher (+13%) contain information on both young persons than a decade ago (Savoie, 2002). Common charged and young persons not charged (i.e., assault-the least serious type including pushing, incidents in which offenders have been identified slapping, punching and threatening-is largely but not charged), their combination (i.e., young responsible for this overall increase in violent persons apprehended) is a more valid indicator of youth crime and is the most frequent violence changes in the level of youth crime than numbers charge against youth. While a variety of factors of youth charged since the total number of youth have no doubt contributed to this rise in common apprehended is not filtered by the decision to assault, a decreased tolerance among Canadians charge (Carrington, 1999). From a comparison of for all forms of violence and so-called “zero- youth apprehended with youth charged for the tolerance” strategies implemented since the early years prior to the introduction of the Young nineties to deal with school violence have resulted Offender’s Act (YOA, 1985) and the subsequent in increased reporting of minor incidents to the years up to 1996, Carrington (1999) concluded police (Savoie, 1999). Alberta’s rate of youths there was no basis for public concern about charged with violent crimes in 2001 (1001 per increased levels of youth crime or the supposed 100,000 youths) is above average for Canada as a failure of the YOA to control youth crime. The

18 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY average rate of young persons apprehended by in Canada remained virtually unchanged over police was 7% higher during the first 11 years this time period, aggravated assault and robbery under the YOA than during the previous 4 years, cases both increased (26% and 23%, respec- due largely to the temporary “hump” in youth tively), although these crimes accounted for only crime during the early 1990s. In contrast, the rate 15% of the violent crime caseload (Sudworth and of young persons charged was 27% higher, deSouza, 2001). As expected, youth courts tend reflecting an immediate post-YOA jump in the to focus upon the more serious cases of violence. proportion of apprehended youth who were Two percent fewer cases were processed in 2000/ charged by police-a drop in the use of police 01 in the youth courts of Canada than in the discretion rather than an increase in youth previous year. There were 403 cases per 10,000 criminal behaviour. Carrington claims that five youth, an 11% decline in the rate since 1996/97. jurisdictions that under the old Juvenile Delin- However, the rate varies greatly from province to quents Act were characterized by the charging of province, from a low of 170 in PEI to 1,241 in the relatively low proportions of apprehended youth Yukon; Alberta’s rate, at 632 per 10,000 youth, (high use of police discretion) suddenly and was above the Canadian average of 403 (deSouza, substantially increased the propor- tion of apprehended youth who were charged following the intro- duction of the YOA. Therefore, media-driven public concern about increased youth crime and the resulting criticisms of the YOA which have again pushed the federal government to legislate changes to the youth justice system seem largely misplaced. Another aspect of public concern and media attention concerning youth crime and the YOA concerns the actions of youth courts in responding to cases of young offenders. Corresponding to the decline in the number of youth charged by the police, the number and rate of youth court cases have generally followed a downward trend since 1992/93; the Alberta rate dropped 31% by 1999/2000 compared to a 17% decrease nationally. This is particularly the case for property crime (down 38% nationally). While the total number of youth violent crime court cases

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 19 2002). The downward trend in youth court most minor assaults; and that there were no caseloads may be due in part to the increased use changes in the rate of the most serious types of of police diversion and alternative measures for violent youth crime. youths committing less serious crimes (Sudworth Sixty percent of all cases disposed of in youth and deSouza, 2001), including mandatory pre- court in 2000/01 resulted in a conviction, while charge screening by the Crown in some prov- cases were stayed or withdrawn in 36% and inces. another 4% resulted in findings of not guilty or The five most frequent offences (together dismissal. Provincial figures for the proportion of representing 57% of the caseload) heard in youth charges withdrawn or stayed vary considerably, court in 2000/01 were in order of frequency: theft with high proportions often indicative of charges under $5,000 (15%), failure to comply with a set aside pending completion of alternative disposition under the YOA (12%), failure to measures programs or the systematic use of these appear (11%), minor assault (10%), and break and decisions for administrative purposes (deSouza, enter (9%). Violent crimes in total represented 2002). just 22% of all cases processed and many of these In 2000/01, probation was the most significant crimes are minor assaults (46%); property crimes sentence in 48% of cases with convictions; represented 40% of all cases (deSouza, 2002). custody was the next most frequent sentence, Doob and Sprott (1998) investigated the claim comprised of secure custody (17%) and open that youth violence in Canada is getting worse but custody (17%); then community service (7%), found that, for the five years ending in 1995-96, fines (6%), absolute discharge (2%), and other the increase in the rate of violent cases in youth sentences (3%) (deSouza, 2002). The distribution court was due to an increase in the number of the of the most significant sentence types has varied little since 1992/93 (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2001). As Figure 3 indicates, cases involving offences against the YOA (49%) and Other Criminal Code offences (41%) have the highest proportion of cases with custody as the most significant sentence. Thirty two percent of violent crime and 30% of property crime offences result in a custody sentence (deSouza, 2002). Although the public seems to think that youth courts have become more lenient, Markwart’s (1992) analysis of the use of incarceration in youth courts before and after the passage of the YOA disputes this view. For example, the average daily sentenced population in the third year after implementation of the YOA was 148% greater than in the last year under the Juvenile Delin-

20 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY quents Act. Markwart concludes that “It is sentences as their number of prior convictions difficult to arrive at any other conclusion but that increase. For example, while 17% of cases the implementation of the YOA has apparently involving first-time offenders resulted in custody been associated with a substantially increased in 1999/00, this increased to 30% with one prior reliance on incarceration (1992:247). Further- conviction, and to 63% with three or more more, in contrast with adult incarceration rates, convictions (Sudworth and deSouza, 2001). Canada places a higher proportion of young While, overall, youths convicted of violent offenders in custody than does the United States offences were only slightly more likely than those (Hornick, et al., 1995). However, incarceration convicted of property crime to receive a term of rates declined from 1995/96 to 2000/01 in most custody, this is due in large measure to the fact reporting provinces, perhaps at least partly due to that nearly half of all violent offence convictions the large financial costs of incarceration. were for minor assaults; and the fact that a greater Approximately 21% of cases with convictions number of youths convicted of property offences in 2000/01 involved repeat offenders; and they have prior criminal convictions which increases were more likely than first-time offenders to be the likelihood of incarceration (Sanders, 2000). sentenced to a term of custody. Repeat offenders Offenders facing multiple charges or those with in 2000/01 were over two times more likely to be previous custody dispositions were more likely to ordered to serve a term of custody (51%) than receive a custody sentence. So youth courts were the first offenders (20%). This wide gap sentence more severely those offenders involved was apparent for both violent crime cases (59% in more serious crimes, as well as repeat offenders versus 24%) and property crime cases (50% (Sanders, 2000). Furthermore, although it would versus 18%) (deSouza, 2002). As would be appear from their higher incarceration rates for a expected, repeat offenders tend to receive harsher number of common offences that adults are punished more severely than youths, the latter are frequently sentenced to longer periods of incarceration for the same offence. This is a surprising result since adult offenders are more likely to have lengthier criminal histories that could increase their sentences (Sanders, 2000). To keep these figures on convictions and sentences in context, however, it is important to recognize that, for example, in 1999/00 only 2% of the Canadian youth population was convicted of an offence. But we incarcerate certain types of offenders, particu- larly property offenders, at rates as high or even higher than does the United States (Sprott and

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 21 Snyder, 1999). The combined use of either open Who are Young Offenders? or secure custody as a sentence in 2001/02 ranged from 26% in Alberta to 57% in the NWT. The onsistent with what we know about most availability and capacity of custodial facilities Ctypes of crime, young males accounted for may have some impact on the use of custody eight in ten youth court cases in 2000/01 and they orders across the country (deSouza, 2002). predominated in all youth age categories. Among Thirty-four percent of cases resulting in a custo- males, 16 and 17 year olds accounted for 54% of dial sentence in 2000/01 were for terms of less cases, while the comparable figure for females than one month and only 6% were for more than 6 was 42%. Overall, 16 year olds accounted for months; the use of short custodial sentences (3 25% of cases and 17 year olds 26%, whereas 12 months or less) has increased somewhat in recent year olds represented only 3% of all cases years (deSouza, 2002). (deSouza, 2002). Correctional admission data Secure custody admissions accounted for 47% also reflect these sex and age patterns. As Figure of sentenced custody admissions in 2000/01 5 demonstrates, Aboriginal youth are over- compared to 53% for open custody (Marinelli, represented in remand, secure and open custody 2002). Four in ten (39%) sentenced custody compared to their proportion in the general admissions resulted from property offences. population, particularly in the western provinces. Break and Enter, Other Criminal Code (e.g., While Aboriginal youth constituted about 5% of mischief, failure to appear and disorderly con- the youth population, they accounted for 26% of duct), and YOA offences (e.g., failure to comply admissions to remand and 24% of admissions to with a previous disposition) accounted for one half of admissions to secure and open custody. Incarceration rates (average daily count of young offend- ers in custody per 10,000 youth population) varied among reporting provinces from a low of 9 in British Columbia to a high of 36 in Saskatch- ewan; Alberta had the second lowest rate in 2000/01. From 1996/97 to 2000/01 incarceration rates declined in all reporting jurisdictions except for New Brunswick; Alberta’s rate de- creased by 33% over this time period (Marinelli, 2002).

22 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY sentenced custody in 2000/01 (Marinelli, 2002). methods are not accurate enough for this type of In Alberta, the typical young offender in custody precise targeting of interventions. is male, between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 years of age, However, from several longitudinal research is incarcerated for property offences, and has an studies, we do have a good idea of the risk factors average sentence length of 110 days (Alberta which are associated with a much increased Justice Communications, 1998). likelihood of serious, repetitive crime. Farrington To reiterate a point made earlier, most youth (1990) has identified six categories of variables commit some act or acts which could bring them that independently predicted offending and which to the attention of the authorities. But relatively should be the target of prevention efforts: few youth engage in serious and/or repetitive impulsivity, low intelligence, poor parenting, an criminal acts. Wolfgang et al.’s (1972) Philadel- antisocial family, socioeconomic deprivation, and phia study showed that just 6% of this male early childhood antisocial behaviour. These sample accounted for 52% of all of the arrests in factors can be used to identify categories of the cohort born in 1945 and followed through children who are at high risk of becoming chronic their eighteenth birthday in 1963. Similarly, in and serious offenders as they age and suggest the the Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development, types of early intervention that would reduce such about 6% of the boys had about 50% of all the risk. For example, teenage pregnancy, substance criminal convictions in the sample (Farrington, use in pregnancy, and perinatal complications 1986). A recent pilot analysis of recidivism such as low birth weight, especially in conjunc- among convicted youth and young adults in tion with poverty, tend to be followed by a variety Canada found that incarceration rates were higher of undesirable outcomes, including low intelli- for repeat offenders with an early age of onset: gence and educational attainment, hyperactivity 59% among recidivists who were age 12 at the and impulsivity, child conduct problems and time of their first conviction compared to 35% for aggression. Prevention programs targeting these recidivists whose age of onset was 17 years of age risk factors should be implemented as early in a (Thomas et al., 2002). Early age of onset recidi- child’s life as possible (Farrington, 1998). vists also had a larger number of prior convic- Farrington (1994) pointed out that the worst tions, more charges per case, and a shorter time to offenders were drawn from the poorest families in re-conviction after controlling for years of the worst housing; and that of all the factors exposure. This type of research demonstrates the measured at ages 8 to 10, low family income was potential value of early and targeted prevention the best predictor of general social dysfunction at efforts. Delinquency peaks in mid-adolescence age 32. Therefore, he recommended that more and then declines in young adulthood so that most economic resources should be targeted selectively young people stop engaging in criminal acts as at the poorest families to improve their economic they mature (Hartnagel, 2000). So it makes good circumstances. Aboriginal youth in Canada are sense to concentrate our limited criminal justice especially at risk for frequent and serious involve- resources on the much smaller number of more ment in crime because they are more likely to serious offenders. Better yet, if we could predict experience a number of these general risk factors. in advance at an early age which individuals were For example, based on 1996 census data approxi- likely to later engage in serious crime or to persist mately one-third of Aboriginal children under 15 in lawbreaking into their adult years, we might be years of age live in a lone-parent family, 54% had able to intervene more effectively to prevent this not received a high school diploma compared to course of events. Unfortunately, our prediction 35% of the non-Aboriginal population, the

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 23 unemployment rate for Aboriginal youth, at 32%, were more likely to re-offend than those who had was almost twice the already high rate for other not been caught and processed by the police youth, and in 1995 Aboriginal children off-reserve (Farrington et al., 1978). After examining several were twice as likely as non-Aboriginal children to studies on this topic, Doob et al. (1995:88-89) live in a low income family (Stevenson, et al., concluded that “We should not expect, overall, 1998). Since the size of the Aboriginal youth that criminal justice processing will reduce population is growing, we can expect an increas- subsequent offending. In a number of studies ing proportion of Aboriginal youth to be at higher which look at ‘criminal justice processing’ from a risk of involvement with the youth justice system. number of different perspectives, it is clear that putting people into the youth justice system will not stop future offending.” Individual deterrence is not an effective justification for bringing youth What are the effects to court and processing them officially. of the Youth Justice System? Rhetoric surrounding the issue of youth crime implies that people’s behaviour is affected by the he substantial percentage of repeat offenders consequences they expect to experience from that Tconvicted in youth court gives some indica- behaviour. Applied to offending behaviour this is tion that the current youth justice system often the notion of general deterrence: potential offend- fails to deter and/or rehabilitate identified offend- ers will be inhibited from committing crimes by ers. Given their continued involvement in the threat of legal punishment. This principle of offending, the fact that repeat offenders tend to general deterrence frequently gets translated into receive harsher penalties than first time offenders a demand for stiffer penalties on the grounds that casts further doubt on the effectiveness of the increasing the legal penalty for crime will stop current system. But it is quite difficult to control those who contemplate such acts from actually for all of the other factors, in addition to the engaging in them. But there are a number of official criminal justice processing, which can assumptions behind this concept. It assumes that affect the probability of re-offending. The crime is the result of rational deliberation and Cambridge longitudinal Study of Delinquent choice that carefully weighs the benefits and Development is an example of the type of re- costs, short and long term, of crime and its search that is required to examine this issue. This alternatives. It assumes that individuals know study followed the same group of boys from early what the existing penalties are, as well as the childhood into adulthood and examined the likelihood of actually experiencing them. It effects of different events they experienced on assumes that the severity of the penalty is its most their history of offending. Using both official important component, that all crimes and poten- records from the police and the courts as well as tial offenders are equally deterable by legal the boys’ self reports of offences they had com- penalties, that anticipated penalties are more mitted which did not result in police involvement, important than anticipated benefits, and that legal the research compared those who had been consequences are more important than other apprehended and officially processed for offend- social consequences. There is also sometimes a ing with a similar group of boys who reported failure to distinguish between the “objective” committing the same number of offences but who consequences (e.g., the minimum penalty in law) had not been caught by the police. The results and the perceived consequences (e.g., what an showed that those who had been apprehended

24 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY individual thinks the minimum legal penalty is or include: making restitution or providing personal believes the penalty would be). services to the victim, participating in crime There is by now a sizeable and complex prevention educational programs, or performing research literature on the general deterrent community service. These programs involve a effectiveness of legal punishment. In reality, this contractual agreement with a specified duration. literature quite consistently has shown that Once completed the case is closed and the charges increasing the severity or degree of legal penalties (in the case of post-charge referral) are withdrawn will not affect the amount of crime or delin- or dismissed. If the program is not completed quency. However, the perceived personal likeli- within the specified time frame, the Crown may hood (certainty) of being apprehended can close the case, consider another term in alterna- influence the occurrence of some types of of- tive measures, or choose to proceed with prosecu- fences (Doob et al., 1995). Unfortunately for tion of the case (Stevenson et al., 1998). general deterrence, the likelihood that a young There are few systematic evaluations of the person will be apprehended by the police, particu- effects of diversion or alternative measures larly for the types of offences most frequently programs on subsequent offending. This is committed by youth, is very low. Not surpris- largely due to the fact that youth who are diverted ingly, so-called “impulsive” crimes are less are by definition at lower risk of re-offending and deterable than “instrumental”, means-to-an-end therefore cannot simply be compared to those kinds of crime. Furthermore, there is wide processed through the court system. However, agreement among criminologists that informal LeBlanc and Beaumont (1991) conducted an sanctions-the interpersonal and community experiment in which they examined the records of consequences of offending-are of much greater a sample of adolescent boys who had been significance than the justice system’s conse- apprehended in Montreal for offending, roughly quences in influencing young people’s chances of half of whom were diverted from the court while offending. the other half were brought to court in the usual Since official processing of young offenders in way. They found no significant differences the judicial system can have unintended negative between the two groups in their subsequent consequences for youth and actually increase their offending as youth or as adults. Among the chances of re-offending , the guiding principles of diverted group there was no difference between the YOA state that alternatives to judicial pro- those required to engage in some type of alterna- ceedings should be considered for young people. tive measures and those simply released. As Diversion refers to these efforts to keep youth Doob et al. (1995) note, sometimes “doing from further involvement in the formal youth nothing” may be as effective in reducing recidi- justice system and it can involve informal vism as “doing something.” means—such as the use of discretion by the police not to lay formal charges but to handle the case informally-or more formal alternative measures as specified in Section 4 of the YOA. These programs vary by province but are gener- ally reserved for first offenders, who must admit to having committed the act in question, and are limited to specific types of less serious offences. Typical alternative measures in use in Canada

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 25 How can we better respond adolescents engage in some behaviours that have to youth crime? the potential to result in some official justice system response. Fortunately, for most this is he reality is that crime prevention is to be fairly trivial, episodic and limited to their adoles- Tpreferred over the criminal justice system cent years. Most do not come to the attention of when it comes to a public policy for responding to the justice system or are diverted from it by the youth crime. Preventing crime from occurring or police with some type of informal response. lowering the amount of crime that does happen Chronic, serious offenders, on the other hand, will, of course, avoid some of the likely negative tend to start earlier, to commit more offences and effects of criminal justice system processing more serious ones, and to persist in their law experienced by young offenders. There is some breaking into their adult years. Therefore, truth to the notion that youth detention facilities substantial cost savings are feasible if sufficient are “schools for crime” in the sense that relatively numbers of such individuals could be prevented naive incarcerated young offenders get exposed to early on from taking this life course. Estimates of the influence of more seasoned offenders, with such cost savings are difficult to determine and the possibility of learning better “tricks” for involve various assumptions. But we do know “successful”crime, as well as the beliefs and that the direct youth and adult criminal justice attitudes that justify and condone such conduct. system costs involved in deterring, detecting, Youth justice system processing can also bring processing, sentencing and controlling offenders about counter-productive changes in some youths’ are significant. For example, the National Crime self image, causing them to think of themselves as Prevention Council of Canada (1996) estimated delinquents, cutting them off from ties to conven- that it costs up to $100,000 a year to incarcerate a tional activities and conforming peers, giving juvenile offender; and the spending on police them a “reputation” in the eyes of others. This services, the courts, legal aid and corrections in may boost their interest in and attraction to Canada was $9.7 billion in 1994/95. These delinquent peers, pushing them further away from figures do not include the costs to victims of conventional behaviour. It is also more difficult crime, as well as the indirect costs to the indi- to change an established pattern of behaviour than vidual and society. When both system costs and it is to prevent it from becoming established to costs of the results of crime are taken into ac- begin with. So prevention is also to be preferred count, the total costs and expenditures are esti- over trying to “treat” or rehabilitate committed mated at $46 billion annually. offenders. It’s likely to be particularly difficult to Since individuals at risk of becoming chronic, successfully rehabilitate adolescent offenders serious offenders are typically also at high risk for since many in this age category are unlikely to be other social problems (e.g., mental health, thinking of their long-term future or may be substance abuse, welfare dependency, unemploy- otherwise in rebellion against authority and ment, etc.), substantial savings to a wide variety conventional institutions. Gaining their participa- of social agencies could be obtained through tion and cooperation in rehabilitation activities is successful early intervention efforts. Economic therefore problematic. evaluations of crime prevention programs that There can also be cost savings from crime encourage the social development of children, prevention activities. This is particularly likely youth and families have shown reductions in when the focus of such prevention is chronic, delinquent behaviour with returns ranging from serious offenders. As indicated earlier, most $1.06 to $7.16 for every $1 spent; while efforts to

26 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY reduce the opportunities for victimization have better lighting, locks and surveillance, or extra produced returns from $1.83 to $7.14 for every $1 police patrols in high crime “hot spots.” Devel- spent (Sansfacon and Welsh, 1999). A RAND opmental crime prevention targets children and Corporation study (Greenwood et al., 1996) their families at high risk of developing into the compared four different crime prevention ap- chronic, serious offenders for whom the greatest proaches-high school graduation incentives, crime reduction benefits can be obtained by parent training, intensive supervision of delin- improving their life chances. Examples would quents, and home visitation/daycare—with include home visits to infants by trained nurses to California’s “three strikes and you’re out” law. reduce child abuse and other injuries, certain The first two prevention programs were dramati- types of preschool programs, family therapy and cally more cost effective than the three strikes law parent training about delinquent and at-risk pre- in terms of serious crime prevented per dollar adolescents, and social competency skills curricu- expended. Only the home visitation/daycare lums in schools (Sherman et al., 1998). intervention was less cost effective than three Developmental crime prevention programs strikes; however, reduction in child abuse and attempt to reduce the risk factors and increase the other favorable results in such areas as child protective factors of those receiving these inter- health and development, educational achievement ventions. Interventions aimed at providing and economic well-being which generate other support for families and assistance to youth in than criminal justice cost savings were not succeeding in school have shown long- term included. benefit, with successful programs sharing some There are different types of crime prevention elements in common: a focus upon multiple risks; strategies. One scheme is to differentiate devel- broadly based interventions; a focus on urban, opmental, community and situational crime low-income families; interventions of two to five prevention (Tonry and Farrington, 1995). Devel- years in length; early intervention, taking place in opmental refers to interventions designed to the first five years of life (Yoshikawa, 1994). prevent the development of criminal potential in While there are a large number of programs individuals, especially targeting the risk and which adopt a developmental approach, few have protective factors discovered in studies of human been rigorously evaluated to determine their development. Community crime prevention is effectiveness. A recent review (Mihalic et al., any intervention designed to change the social 2001) of over 500 such programs used three conditions that influence offending in residential critical selection criteria for identifying effective communities; while situational includes interven- programs: evidence of a deterrent effect using a tions designed to prevent the occurrence of strong research design (experimental design with crimes, especially by reducing the opportunities random assignment or quasi-experimental design and increasing the risks of detection. Community with matched control groups); sustained program crime prevention would encompass such activities effects beyond treatment and from one develop- as Neighborhood Watch, community-based after mental period to the next; and replication of school recreation programs, and urban enterprise results in multiple sites. Using these criteria, this zones in areas of very high unemployment. review identified 11 model programs or “blue- Situational crime prevention covers a variety of prints for violence prevention” that have met this very specifically-targeted interventions such as high standard and have proven effective in redesigning the layout of retail stores, “target- reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, hardening” and improved home security such as delinquency, and/or substance abuse. Here we

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 27 can provide only selected examples. problem solving strategies, while the child Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses training component emphasizes skills related to has been demonstrated to modify such risk factors developing emotional literacy, having empathy for early development of antisocial behaviour as with others or taking their perspective, making adverse maternal health-related behaviours during and keeping friends, managing anger, solving pregnancy, child abuse and neglect, and troubled interpersonal problems, following school rules maternal life course. This program sends nurses and succeeding at school. In six randomized to the homes of low-income, first-time mothers trials the parent training component reduced during pregnancy and until the child is two years conduct problems and improved parenting old, promoting the physical, cognitive and social- interactions, with these improvements sustained emotional development of the children and up to three years after the intervention. The cycle providing general support and instruction in of aggression appears to have been halted for parenting skills. Fundamental to program approximately two-thirds of families whose effectiveness are trained and experienced nurses children have conduct disorders and who have with strong interpersonal skills and a maximum been treated in clinics (Webster-Stratton, 1990). caseload of 25 families visited every 1 to 2 weeks, The child training component resulted in signifi- with the nurses focusing simultaneously on the cantly improved social skills and positive conflict mother’s personal health and development, management strategies with peers and reduced environmental health, and quality of care-giving. child behaviour problems at home and school Adolescents whose mothers received nurse home (Webster-Stratton and Hammond, 1997). visits more than a decade earlier were 60% less A final example of a Blueprints model pro- likely to have run away, 55% less likely to have gram is Functional Family Therapy, a short-term been arrested, 80% less likely to have been intervention that has been successfully applied to convicted of a crime, and exhibited fewer behav- a wide range of problem youth and their families ioural problems related to alcohol and drug use in various contexts. On average, participating than adolescents whose mothers did not receive youth attend twelve one hour sessions spread over such visits (Olds et al., 1998). When the program three months, with three different treatment focuses on low-income women, program costs are phases: 1. engagement and motivation-techniques recovered by the time the child reaches age 4 to address maladaptive perceptions, beliefs and (Olds et al., 1993); and once the child reaches age emotions, reduce resistance to treatment, and 15 the estimated cost savings are four times the overcome the intense negativity that can prevent original investment because of reductions in change; 2. behaviour change-develop and imple- crime, welfare expenditures, and healthcare costs ment intermediate and long-term behaviour and as a result of taxes paid by working parents change plans tailored to the unique characteristics (Karoly et al., 1998). of each family member; 3. generalization-help The Incredible Years Parent, Teacher and families apply positive family change to other Child Training Series is designed to promote problem areas, maintain changes and prevent social competence and prevent, reduce and treat relapses through links to community resources. conduct problems in young children ages 2 to 8. Success has been demonstrated and replicated for There are several training components; for more than 25 years through controlled compari- example, one teaches parents interactive play and son studies with follow-up periods of 1, 3 and 5 reinforcement skills, nonviolent discipline years showing significant and long-term reduc- techniques, logical and natural consequences, and tions in youth re-offending and in sibling entry

28 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY into high-risk behaviours (Mihalic et al., 2001). development, fetal alcohol syndrome, protection Crime prevention in Canada was given a boost of children involved in prostitution, and student in 1993 by a report of the Commons’ Standing health. Among the expected outcomes of this Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General collaboration are: children and youth are safe which, among other recommendations, called for from abuse or neglect, parents are provided with the establishment of a national crime prevention the resources to meet the needs of their children, council and for 5% of the then current criminal the social consequences of poverty on the family justice budget to be spent on prevention activities are minimized, and children are ready to learn (Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor when they start school and succeed in school. General, 1993). A National Crime Prevention The Federal Government’s Youth Justice Council was established by the federal govern- Strategy announced in 1998 included crime ment in 1994, but without the recommended prevention as a key element in the protection of budget figure. Its focus was on the root causes of society and the new Youth Criminal Justice Act crime prevention through social development, identified crime prevention, along with meaning- with particular concern for children and youth ful consequences and rehabilitation, as the key (National Crime Prevention Council, 1995). Over elements to protect the public and promote safer subsequent years the Council assisted with local communities. However, it remains to be seen prevention initiatives across the country and the how well this aspect of the act will be imple- Ministry of Justice has provided seed money for a mented, including the commitment of funds to variety of programs. For example, since Aborigi- support crime prevention activities across the nal children face particular hardships and disad- country on more than a temporary or “demonstra- vantages, the Aboriginal Head Start Initiative tion” basis and with a rigorous evaluation of attempts to assist parents of preschool age substantive and cost effectiveness. children in contributing to their children’s mental, emotional, and social development. There are now over 100 of these programs modeled after the f course, the reality is that not all crime can U.S. Head Start program operating across Canada Obe prevented. Therefore, it is necessary to using a social development approach to long-term have in place policies for responding to the crimes crime prevention. of young offenders. These policies will no doubt The Report of the Task Force on Children at continue to be guided by a varying mix of the Risk (nd) and the Alberta Children’s Initiative multiple goals we set for the youth justice system: (www.child.gov.ab.ca/acyi) suggest that the retribution to balance the harm committed, Alberta Government has grasped the importance deterrence (individual and general) of future of early intervention for children and families at crime, incapacitation of the truly dangerous for risk for the prevention of a variety of later societal protection, symbolic reaffirmation of our problems, including crime and violence. The collective values, rehabilitation of the offender, Alberta Children’s Initiative was introduced in and the restoration of harmony between victim 1998 as a collaboration of several government and offender in the community. While a discus- ministries working together on issues affecting sion of specific policies and programs to accom- children and youth to support their healthy plish each of these goals is beyond the scope of development. This has been a Government policy this paper, a few general principles can be priority since 1999/00 involving five key initia- identified and selected policies and programs tives: children’s mental health, early childhood described. First of all, we should recognize that

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 29 these multiple goals of youth justice can easily principles in mind, we can turn to a brief descrip- conflict with one another, creating dilemmas tion of several programs for responding to youth around how best to respond to youth crime and crime which embody aspects of these principles contributing to ineffectiveness in the system of and for which there is some evidence of effective- youth justice. For example, retribution may ness. require only a minor response but one which may Before doing so, however, we should point out not contribute to restoration of harmony with the that “alternative measures” are already authorized victim or rehabilitation for the offender; or what by the YOA Alternative measures aim to divert would be sufficient for deterrence may not be so persons accused of less serious crimes out of the for retribution; and so forth. Second, we should system to non-judicial, community-based alterna- recall that most youth crime is fairly trivial and tives (Engler and Crowe, 2000). The individual most young offenders mature out of their criminal must first acknowledge responsibility for the conduct as they move out of their adolescent offence and the Crown must decide if an alterna- years. Therefore, the formal procedures of youth tive measures program is appropriate and make court should be invoked sparingly and most the referral. Typical programs include personal apprehended youth dealt with through informal service to a victim, financial compensation to a procedures that divert them from the youth justice victim, community service, educational sessions, system early on. Community-based programs for personal or written apologies, and essays or serious juvenile offenders are at least as success- presentations related to the offence. Terms and ful as custody, while offering a more humane and conditions of the agreement are tailored to fit the cost effective but less intrusive approach (Loeber circumstances of the offence, the offender and the and Farrington, 1998. Third, we need to be needs and concerns of the community and the vigilant to ensure that such diversion programs do victim. In Alberta, alternative measures are pre- not have the unintended effect of widening the net charge only. When all the terms of the agreement of formal social control to encompass those youth are met, the case is ‘completed successfully.’ In who previously would merely be warned and both 1997/98 and 1998/99 Alberta had the highest released or ignored completely. Fourth, we need youth participation rate in alternative measures, to minimize the use of custody, reserving its use partly due to the use of caution letters which for those relatively small number of youth who accounted for 16% of the active caseload in 1998/ are dangerous to themselves and/or others. Even 99. The rate of youth brought to court in Alberta in these cases, the focus should be on appropriate in 1998/99 (671 per 10,000 youth) was approxi- treatment to rehabilitate and reintegrate the youth mately 1.7 times the rate of youth participating in back into the community rather than mere alternative measures in the Province (384 per incapacitation since almost all will in fact return 10,000 youth); this compares to the Canadian to the community at the expiry of their sentence. average ratio of 3.2, with Quebec having the most Fifth, the effectiveness of legal punishment as a similar rates (ratio of approximately 1.2 court deterrent is limited, particularly as far as sentence cases to alternative measures). Youth who severity is concerned. Sixth, since crime occurs committed property offences were more likely to in a community context and almost all young be referred to alternative measures (73%), with offenders will continue living in or soon return to only 8% of cases involving violent offences; the this community, serious efforts should be made to largest proportion of alternative measures cases involve the community, including the specific involved theft under $5,000 (57%), with mischief victim, into the justice process. With these next at 11%. The most frequent types of alterna-

30 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY tive measures were community service (22%) and Centre is promoting versions of Family Group apologies (17%). Of cases closed in 1998/99, Conferences in several Canadian sites. 93% of youth successfully completed all meas- Youth Justice Committees, first established in ures agreed to (Engler and Crowe, 2000). Alberta in 1990 in Fort Chipewyan and subse- Family Group Conferences are an example of quently expanded to 93 communities across the an innovative response to youth crime which Province, share some of the restorative justice employ restorative justice principles in an attempt features of family group conferences. These to reintegrate young offenders into the community Committees are official recognized by Alberta in ways acceptable to it and to the victim (Varma Justice and follow two basic models. The pre- and Marinos, 2000). Based on the theory of court diversionary model-73 Committees— reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989) as receives referrals from the police or the Crown opposed to stigmatization and ostracism of before a court appearance. The Committee offenders, Family Group Conferences have administers the Alternative Measures Program several objectives: divert young offenders from and negotiates an agreement for the offender to the court system; provide victims with an oppor- make amends for the crime, addressing the needs tunity to participate actively in the process of of the community, the victim and the offender. seeking reparation; arrange compensation for The Committee then monitors the carrying out of material damage where appropriate; make young the agreement. The court-based model-20 offenders aware of the consequences of their Committees—is used primarily by Aboriginal behaviour; and involve the family and close communities and receives cases from the judge friends or the ‘community of care’ of a young for sentencing recommendations once a guilty offender in the process of dealing with the plea is entered. Offenders, their families, victims consequences of the young offender’s behaviour and other involved parties are given an opportu- (LaPrairie, 2000). The offender must admit to the nity to voice their concerns and opinions, and the crime prior to the conference, the core of which Committee submits a recommendation to the involves the participants’ stories, and victim judge. On June 13, 2002 the Alberta Government participation in the process is crucial to establish announced an increase in the budget for these the harm done and to elicit the offender’s recogni- committees from $170,000 in 2001/02 to tion and acknowledgment of the effects of the $300,000 in 2002/03, in part to provide training criminal behaviour (LaPrairie, 2000). A coordina- for the volunteer committee members to accom- tor guides the process and formalizes the mutually modate the expectations of the new Youth Crimi- agreed upon outcome. Morris and Maxwell nal Justice Act for an expansion of conferencing (1997) have pointed to a number of beneficial between young offenders and their victims. outcomes from such conferences, including lower Alternatives to incarceration typically involve recidivism, a high degree of satisfaction with the placement in a group home setting which can process by victims, greater participation by the facilitate further association with delinquent family and the community, and meaningful peers, a strong predictor of future offending. One consequences for the young offender. These of the Blueprints for Violence Prevention pro- conferences are capable of activating informal grams-Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care social controls from family and friends which are (MTFC)-offers a viable and cost-effective much more effective deterrents to future offend- alternative to such group care (Mihalic et al., ing than formal court sanctions (Varma and 2001). MTFC recruits, trains, and supervises Marinos, 2000). The National Crime Prevention foster families to provide participating youth with

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 31 close supervision, fair and consistent limits and consequences, and a supportive relationship with an adult. Parent training emphasizes behaviour management methods to provide youth with a structured and therapeutic living environment with close supervision and discipline for rule violations at home, in the community, and at school. A case manager and the MTFC parents develop an individualized daily program for each youth that specifies a schedule of activities and behavioural expectations. Youth progress through three levels of supervision based upon their compliance. Routine consultation and ongoing supervision of MTFC parents is a cornerstone of the program and the youth’s biological family is taught to use the same system for when the youth returns home. Evaluations of MTFC youth show they had significantly fewer arrests during a 12 month follow-up than a control group of youth who participated in residential group care pro- grams; and the MTFC youth spent significantly fewer days in lockup during the first two years after program completion, resulting in a savings of $122,000 in incarceration costs for the pro- gram. In addition, significantly fewer MTFC youth were ever incarcerated following treatment (Chamberlain, 1990).

32 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY Conclusion program to be sustained, detracting from program implementation and administration. Unfortu- nately, community-based programs targeting young children and their families face unstable Youth crime and justice in Canada is certainly an funding, particularly by the Provincial Govern- important issue that requires serious attention. ment (Ohara, 2002). For example, the Ma’Mowe But it is hardly the crisis that some would have us Capital Region Child and Family Services believe. However, our youth justice system is Authority terminated contracts in February 2002 clearly in a period of change and much depends for 22 early intervention programs and reduced upon how the new Youth Criminal Justice Act is funding for another 7 programs for a total of $2.8 implemented. In particular, the nature and extent million in budget cuts. Many of these programs of the cost-sharing and other agreements to be provided services to high risk Aboriginal youth negotiated between the federal and provincial/ (Simons, 2002). Often programs are not rigor- territorial governments will have a large impact ously evaluated to determine their effectiveness in upon the future development of programs for reducing crime before funding runs out. In most prevention and treatment of youth crime. Even instances we would do better to adopt a “best the best-validated program will not succeed if not practices” approach using already well-estab- adequately funded and faithfully implemented by lished and validated model programs, such as competent staff (Cornell, 1999). While legisla- those noted in the Blueprints for Violence Preven- tion is important, the specific types of treatment tion, with stable funding over a number of years and prevention programs that are established and rather than attempting to “reinvent the wheel” how they are actually implemented by provincial with short-term, inadequately funded experimen- governments, police officers, Crown prosecutors, tal programs. judges and community members will be of much Our review of the political discourse and greater importance for affecting the level of youth public opinion, along with the actual trends in crime and impacting upon the lives of individual youth crime and justice, demonstrated a substan- youth. For example, when a judge wishes to tial gap between much of the rhetoric and the sentence a convicted young offender to some type reality of youth crime and justice. In some sense of community-based treatment program as an the new legislation will change little of the current alternative to custody, if such a program is not situation unless a number of politicians and the available the judge may then have little option but media change their usual approach to the subject to impose a term of custody. Sufficient numbers of youth crime. If they fail to resist the tempta- of staff must be hired and adequately trained in tion to focus upon the exceptional crimes and the procedures of successful programs for such instead exaggerate the threat to the public and programs to function as intended and maintain continue to focus almost exclusively upon their effectiveness (Cornell, 1999). punitive responses, public knowledge of and There is a tendency for governments to fund opinions about youth crime and justice issues will “demonstration” programs for a relatively short continue to be distorted. We are then likely to see period of time. There is a reluctance to commit another round in the on-going cycle of contro- funds for longer-term programming beyond the versy regarding this topic. The new YCJA existing budget cycle. Consequently, program appears to be a political compromise by the staff must very quickly turn their attention to Federal Government, which was under pressure fund-raising and proposal-writing in order for a from some opposition politicians and provincial

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 33 governments, as well as from public concerns policy. The development of the YCJA fits this about “serious” youthful offenders, to be seen as pattern. doing something to hold them accountable and to It remains to be seen how the Alberta Govern- enhance public safety, while at the same time ment responds to the opportunities available in wanting to decrease the use of custody and the YCJA for developing and supporting creative encourage an increase in community-based alternatives for responding to youth crime. A alternatives for the large majority of young close examination of actual expenditures to offenders. The effectiveness of the YCJA in determine the amount of new spending on youth satisfying these varying concerns remains to be justice programming and the types of initiatives seen. funded will be required when the YCJA comes There is also often a gap between the “tough into force. In the meantime, the province should talk” and punitive rhetoric of Alberta Tory follow-up on the recommendations of the Justice politicians on issues of youth crime and justice Summit, especially by developing additional and the reality of the youth justice system in the strategies and devoting more resources to extend province. We have seen that Alberta is far from the availability of social prevention and commu- the top of youth crime statistics in Canada and nity-based correctional programs to additional that it has one of the lowest rates in the country locations throughout Alberta and also increase the for the use of custody for young offenders. accessibility of alternative measures to a larger Furthermore, the Justice Summit failed to endorse number of young offenders. Although Alberta’s a strongly punitive approach to youth crime; and ratio of young offenders brought to youth court the Alberta Government has expanded financial compared to those in alternative measures is support for Youth Justice Committees and shown below the Canadian average, there is room to signs of approving a preventative approach. The reduce this further by broadening the eligibility ability of the provincial government to directly criteria to include more repeat and minor violent affect the punitiveness of the youth justice system offenders. But in addition to increasing the is limited. Of course, it is easy for provincial numbers of participants in such alternative politicians to criticize areas of federal jurisdiction measures, more effort should be devoted to and legislation, a frequent political ploy in incorporating more restorative justice elements Alberta, and the YOA was no exception. The into these programs. The additional funds for Provincial Government also has no direct influ- training of Youth Justice Committee volunteers is ence over the sentencing decisions of youth court a positive step in the direction of expanding their judges, although it can determine the availability work to incorporate more of this approach. The of custodial and non-custodial placements Alberta Government could also support efforts to through its budgetary decisions. Undoubtedly, the better educate the media and the public about the punitive rhetoric reflects a belief in the underlying realities of youth crime and justice. Finally, in ideology that Miller (1973) characterized as anticipation of the future occurrence of some “conservative” and which assumes that offenders terrible crime by youth similar to the Danelesko have rationally chosen to commit crime and murder, the Government should develop a more deserve punishment which will act as a deterrent measured and informed policy for communicating for future crime. However, this rhetoric also its condemnation of the crime while recognizing functions to exploit public fears and influence the complexities of why such acts occur and how public discourse on issues of crime and justice, best to respond in both the short and longer term. thereby limiting the feasible options for public

34 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY References

Alberta Justice. 1998. “Public confidence in the Carrington, Peter J. 1999. “Trends in youth crime in justice system.” Alberta Summit on Justice. Canada, 1977-1996.” Canadian Journal of Criminology www.gov.ab.ca/justicesummit/survey/survey1.htm 41(1):1-32.

Alberta Justice Communications. 1998. Public Chamberlain, P. 1990. “Comparative evaluation of Consultation Guide: Alberta Summit on Justice. specialized foster care for seriously delinquent Edmonton: Alberta Justice. youths.” Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care 2:21-36. All Party MLA Public Consultation Committee. 1998. Report: Alberta Summit on Justice. Cornell, Dewey G. 1999. “Effective Practices in Youth Edmonton: Legislative Assembly. Violence Prevention.” Pp. 29-42 in D. G. Cornell, A. Loper, A. Atkinson and P. Sheras (eds.), Youth Violence Angus Reid Group. 1997. The Angus Reid Report Prevention in Virginia: A Needs Assessment. Rich- 12(4). Ottawa: Angus Reid Group. mond: Virginia Department of Health.

Archambault, J.R.O. 1991. Forward. In A.W. Leschied, Coulter, Diane. 1994. “Emotional pleas on youth P.G. Jaffe and W. Willis (eds.), The Young Offender’s Act: crime.” The Edmonton Journal, April 21st, B1. A Revolution in Canadian Juvenile Justice. Toronto: University Toronto Press. Dell, C.A. 1999. “Young offender legislation in Canada: a commentary.” Forum on Corrections Research Bala, Nicholas. 1994. “What’s wrong with YOA 11:47-50. bashing? What’s wrong with the YOA? Recognizing the limits of the law.” Canadian Journal of Criminol- Department of Justice. Nd. A Strategy for the ogy 36: 247-270. Renewal of Youth Justice. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada. Baron, Stephen W. and Timothy F. Hartnagel. 1996. “‘Lock ‘em up’: attitudes toward punishing young deSouza, Paul. 2002. Youth Court Statistics, 2000/01. offenders.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 38(2): Juristat 22(3). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice 191-212. Statistics.

Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegra- Doob, Anthony N. 2000. “Transforming the punish- tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ment environment: understanding public views of what should be accomplished at sentencing.” Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 2001. Graphical Canadian Journal of Criminology 42:323-340. Overview of the Criminal Justice Indicators. Ottawa: Minister of Industry. Doob, Anthony N. and Jane B. Sprott. 1996. “Interpro- vincial variation in the use of the Youth Court.” Canadian Sentencing Commission. 1987. Sentencing Canadian Journal of Criminology 38:401-412. Reform: A Canadian Approach. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. ______. 1998. “Is the ‘quality’ of youth violence becoming more serious?” Canadian Journal of Criminology 40:185-194.

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 35 Doob, Anthony N., Voula Marinos and Kimberly N. Government of Ontario. 2001. Ontario Ministry of the Varma. 1995. Youth Crime and the Youth Justice Attorney General Press Releases, October 31. Toronto: System in Canada. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, Government of Ontario. University of Toronto. Greenwood, P. W., K.E. Model, C.P. Rydell and J. Chiesa. Edmonton Journal. 1993. The Edmonton Journal, 1996. Diverting Children From a Life of Crime: January 3rd. Measuring Costs and Benefits. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. ______. 1992. The Edmonton Journal, December 29th. Ha, Tu Thanh. 1994. “Crime and concern.” The Montreal Gazette, April 23rd, B1 Engler, Cheryl and Shannon Crowe. 2000. Alternative Measures in Canada, 1998-99. Juristat 20(6). Ottawa: Hackler, Jim. 2002. “An impressionistic view of Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Canadian juvenile justice: 1965-1999. Canadian Journal of Mental Health, forthcoming. Engman, Kathleen. 1994. “Testimony to fatal night of horror.” The Ottawa Citizen, December 2nd, A4. Hartnagel, Timothy F. 2000. “Correlates of Criminal Behaviour.” Pp. 94-136 in Rick Linden (ed.), Criminol- Environics Research Group. 1998. Focus Canada ogy: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Environics 1998-1. Ottawa: Environics. Canada. Farrington, David. 1998. “Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour.” Pp. 353-391 in A. Campbell and S. Muncer Hartnagel, Timothy F. and Stephen Baron. 1995. “It’s (eds.), The Social Child: Studies in Developmental Time to Get Serious: Public Attitudes Toward Juvenile Psychology. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press Justice in Canada.” Pp. 47-59 in James Creechan and Ltd. Robert Silverman (eds.), Canadian Delinquency. Toronto: Prentice Hall. ______. 1994. “The nature and origins of delinquency.” Jack Tizard Memorial Lecture, 2nd Hendrick, Dianne. 2001. Youth custody and commu- European Conference of the Association for Child nity services in Canada, 1999/00. Juristat 21(12). Psychology and Psychiatry, September, Winchester, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. England. Hornick, J., N. Bala, and J. Hudson. 1995. The Response ______. 1990. “Implications of criminal career to Juvenile Crime in the United States: A Canadian research for the prevention of offending.” Journal of Perspective. Calgary: Canadian Research Institute for Adolescence 13(2):93-113. Law and the Family.

Farrington, David, S.G. Osborn and D.J. West. 1978. Johnson, Anthony. 1994. “Province seeks feedback on “The persistence of labeling effects.” British Journal of young offenders.” The Calgary Herald, April 29th, A1. Criminology 18:277-284. Karoly, L.A., S.S. Everingham, J. Hoube, R. Kilburn, C.P. Gillis, H. 1974. Youth and History. New York: Academy Rydell, M. Sanders, and P.W. Greenwood. 1998. Press. Investing in Our Children. MR-898. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. Goff, Colin. 2001. Criminal Justice in Canada. Scarborough: Nelson Thompson Learning. Kent, Gordon. 1997. “Accused were armed with knives-witness.” Calgary Herald, June 14th: A17

36 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY LaPrairie, Carol. 2000. “Sentencing Circles and Family National Crime Prevention Council. 1996. The Dollars Group Conferences.” Pp 277-287 in Julian V. Roberts and Sense of a Comprehensive Crime (ed.), Criminal Justice in Canada. Toronto: Harcourt Prevention Strategy for Canada. Ottawa: National Canada. Crime Prevention Council.

LeBlanc, Marc and Helene Beaumont. 1991. ______. 1995. A Message to those Working with “L’efficacite de la dejudiciarisation a Montreal en Children and Youth. Ottawa: National Crime Preven- 1981.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 33:61-82. tion Council.

Loeber, Rolf and David Farrington. 1998. “Never too Ohara, Phil. 2002. Personal communication. early, never too late: risk factors and successful interventions for serious and violent juvenile offend- Olds, D., C.R. Henderson, R. Cole, J. Eckenrode, H. ers.” Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 7:7-31. Kitzman, D. Luckey, L. Pettitt, K. Sidora, P. Morris, and J. Powers. 1998. “Long-term effects of nurse home Logan, Ron. 2001. Crime Statistics in Canada, 2000. visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial Juristat 21(8). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial.” Statistics. Journal of the American Medical Association 280(14):1238-1244. Marinelli, Julie. 2002. Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2000/01. Juristat 22(8). Ottawa: Olds, D., C. Henderson, C. Phelps, H. Kitzman, and C. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Hanks. 1993. “Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on government spending.” Medical Markwart, A. 1992. Custodial Sanctions Under the Care 31(2):155-174. Young Offenders Act. Pp. 229-281 in R. Corrado, N. Bala, R. Linden, and M. LeBlanc (eds.), Juvenile Justice Peterson-Badali, M. 1996. Adults’ Knowledge and in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths. Perceptions of the Young Offenders Act: A Prelimi- nary Study. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada. Maxim, Paul and Paul Whitehead. 2000. Youth in Conflict with the Law. Scarborough: Nelson Powell, Kerry. 1997. “Teen back on street after Thompson Learning. Danelesko killing.” Edmonton Journal, December 13th:B2. Mihalic, Sharon, Katherine Irwin, Delbert Elliott, Abigail Fagan and Diane Hansen. 2001. Blueprints for Roberts, Julian V. 2000. “Introduction to Criminal Violence Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice in Canada.” Pp. 3-15 in Julian V. Roberts (ed.), Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Criminal Justice in Canada. Toronto: Harcourt.

Miller, Walter B. 1973. “Ideology and criminal justice ______. 1992. “Public opinion, crime, and policy.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology criminal justice.” Pp. 99-180 in Michael Tonry 64:141-162. (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morris, A. and G. Maxwell. 1997. “Re-forming juvenile justice.” Prison Journal 77(2):125-134. Roberts, Julian V. and Anthony N. Doob. 1990. “News media influences on public views of sentencing.” Law and Human Behavior 14:451-468.

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 37 Sanders, Trevor. 2000. Sentencing of Young Offenders Stevenson, Karen, Jennifer Tufts, Dianne Hendrick and in Canada, 1998/99. Juristat 20(7), Ottawa: Canadian Melanie Kowalski. 1998. A Profile of Youth Justice in Centre for Justice Statistics. Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statis- tics. Sansfacon, D. and B. Welsh. 1999. Crime Prevention Digest II: Comparative Analysis of Successful Commu- Sudworth, Mark and Paul deSouza. 2001. Youth Court nity Safety. Montreal: International Centre for the Statistics, 1999/00. Juristat 21(3), Ottawa: Canadian Prevention of Crime. Centre for Justice Statistics.

Savoie, Josee. 1999. Youth Violent Crime. Juristat Task Force on Children at Risk. Nd. Start Young, Start 19(13). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Now! Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

______. 2002. Crime Statistics in Canada, 2001. The Young Offenders Act Task Force. 1994. Young Juristat 22(6). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Offenders Act Provincial Review: Report. Statistics. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Schuler, Corinna and Diana Coulter. 1994. “Klein Thomas, Mikhail, Howard Hurley, and Craig Grimes. supports death penalty for some murderers.” The 2002. Pilot Analysis of Recidivism Among Convicted Edmonton Journal, April 20, A5. Youth and Young Adults-1999/00. Juristat 22(9), Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Tonry, Michael and David P. Farrington. 1995. “Strate- Bushway. 1998. Preventing Crime: What Works, What gic Approaches to Crime Prevention.” Pp. 1-20 in Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, D.C.: National Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington (eds.), Building Institute of Justice. a Safer Society, V. 19, Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Simons, Paula. 2002. The Edmonton Journal, May 28 and 29, B1. Tremblay, S. 2000. Crime Statistics in Canada, 1999. Juristat 20(5), Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Sprott, Jane B. 1996. “Understanding public views of Statistics. youth crime and the youth justice system.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 38(3): 271-290. Tufts, Jennifer. 2000. Public Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System. Juristat 20(12). ______. 1998. “Understanding public opposition Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. to a separate youth justice system.” Crime and Delinquency 44(3): 399-411. Varma, Kimberly and Voula Marinos. 2000. “How Do We Best Respond to the Problem of Youth Crime?” In Julian V. Roberts (ed.), Criminal Justice in Canada: A Sprott, Jane B. and H.N. Snyder. 1999. “Une Reader. Toronto: Harcourt Brace comparaison de la delinquance des jeunes au Canada et aux Etats-Unis.” Criminologie 32:55-82. Webster-Stratton, C. 1990. “Long-term follow-up of families with young conduct-problem children.” Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 19:144-149. General. 1993. Crime Prevention in Canada. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group.

38 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY Webster-Stratton, C. and M. Hammond. 1997. “Treat- ing children with early-onset conduct problems.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65(1):93-109.

Wolfgang, Marvin, Robert M. Figlio and Thorsten Sellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Yoshikawa, Hirokazu. 1994. “Prevention as cumulative protection.” Psychological Bulletin 115:28-54.

Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 39 40 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY 41 11045 Saskatchewan Drive, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1 Phone: (780) 492-858 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ualberta.ca/parkland

ISBN 1-894949-00-5 42 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta: RHETORIC AND REALITY